DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11 March 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 4, 12, 15, 20, 22-23, 31, and 33 have been amended, claims 16-17 have been cancelled, and claims 37-38 have been added by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22-23, 27, 31, 33, and 35-38 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15, 19-20, 22, 27, 33, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US-20180138022-A1), hereinafter “Lam”, in view of Vane (US-20150097485-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lam and Vane together disclose a plasma treatment apparatus (see Abstract) comprising: a sealed unit (the closed compartment is microbially sealed; see [0012]) whose inside is sealed against an external environment (Being “microbially sealed” herein means that microbial organisms may not penetrate into the microbially sealed closed compartment; see [0012]); a pressure adjusting unit (fluid transfer system; see [0014]) configured to adjust an internal pressure of the sealed unit (for reducing the pressure therein – thereby facilitating plasma generation; see [0014]); and comprising a vacuum pump (a vacuum pump; see [0080]) configured to exhaust an internal atmosphere of the sealed unit (to pump closed compartment to a desirable low pressure; see [0080]), and an exhaust valve configured to open or close a flow path interconnecting the sealed unit and the vacuum pump (a vacuum pump fluidly associated with fluid port via a controlled valve… fluidly connect valve port with vacuum pump to pump closed compartment; see [0080]); an electrode unit (electrical circuit is configured to drive an AC current through an electrode or electrodes; see [0065]) configured to form an electric field inside the sealed unit for plasma treatment on an object to be treated (… for applying a plasma-generating electric field inside closed compartment; see [0065]); and a control unit (controller; see [0101]) for controlling the vacuum pump (operating unit including… a controlling unit and also including a gas pump; see [0211]), the exhaust valve (controlled valve; see [0080]), and the electrode unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the electrode unit to perform the plasma treatment by forming the electric field inside the sealed unit (electrical circuit… configured to controllably generate an AC electric power; see [0065] and electrical circuit is configured to drive an AC current through electrodes… for applying a plasma generating electric field; see [0065] and controlling unit of the device, associated with the power source and configured to allow a user to command the device; see [0212]).
Lam and Vane together disclose maintaining the internal pressure of the sealed unit within a pre-set process pressure range in a low-pressure atmosphere throughout the plasma treatment (compartment may be sealed so that vacuum is maintained inside for a period of time sufficient to carry out plasma treatment; see [0076]), but does not explicitly teach the controller as being configured to do so by controlling the vacuum pump and exhaust valve while simultaneously controlling the electrode unit. However, Vane discloses controlling a vacuum pump and valve while simultaneously generating plasma/performing plasma treatment (“valve 6 remains open while plasma is being generated… and keeps the pressure in an operating range”; see [0047] and “The plasma can then be maintained as TMP 4 re-evacuates the vacuum chambers… The pressure will descend to a pressure determined by the leak or flow rate through the leak valve or orifice 10 balanced by the pumping conductance and by the pumping rate of the TMP 4”; see [0048]).
Lam and Vane are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma treatment devices. Configuring the controller of Lam to simultaneously control the electrode unit, vacuum pump, and exhaust valve, as disclosed by Vane, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Vane offers the motivation of the ability to then control the evacuation rate of the vacuum pump to keep the plasma on and conducting, but low enough that the high vacuum turbo molecular pump is not over heated during the plasma operation time (see [0048]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pre-set process pressure range is set in a range of 1 Torr or higher and less than 100 Torr (a desirable low pressure, e.g. 0.1 atmosphere or even 0.01 atmosphere; see [0080]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sealed unit comprises an upper member and a lower member that are separated from each other (Compartment 1010 comprises a compartment base 1012 and a compartment cover 1014; see [0115] Regarding the limitation claiming, “the upper member or the lower member seals the inside of the sealing unit by moving in relation to each other”, it is understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that when a cover is removed thereby exposing the inside of the compartment to the external environment, that compartment is no longer sealed. If the compartment is capable of being sealed as disclosed by Lam (see [0123]), then it logically follows that when all other components are “sealed”, then connecting the cover to the base will thereby seal the compartment.
Regarding Claim 5, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 4, wherein the lower member comprises an accommodating hole corresponding to a shape of the object to be treated or a container having accommodated therein the object to be treated (compartment 1010 may be shaped to have an internal space of a hollow dome, dimensioned to contain therein the breast implant; see [0115]), and the electrode unit comprises an electrode disposed on an inner circumferential surface of the accommodating hole (the electrodes… are positioned in base 1012; see [0116] and “electrode houses 1070”; see [0124] and Fig. 10B).
Regarding Claim 7, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the sealed unit comprises a transparent material, and thus the low-pressure atmosphere in the inside of the sealed unit formed by discharge is visually recognizable from the outside (Portable container 820g comprises a window 854g allowing light of the plasma generated inside the portable container to pass through. According to some embodiments, window 854g may be optically coupled with an optical filter (e.g. a spectral filter such as a bandpass filter), allowing light having substantially a wavelength of the glare of the plasma generated inside the portable container to selectively pass through the window; see [0109]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrode unit comprises an electrode, and at least a portion of the electrode is exposed into the inside of the sealed unit (see Fig. 6, parts 682 and 684, and [0092]).
Regarding Claim 10, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 9, wherein the electrode at least partially exposed into the inside of the sealed unit is electrically connected to the object to be treated accommodated in the sealed unit or a portion of a container having accommodated therein the object to be treated (a closed compartment 682 containing implant 132 inside and an electrode 684 comprising an elongated conductor 686 wound around a cylindrical core 688 made of a dielectric, non - magnetic material, conductor 686 having both ends electrically interconnected. Electrode 684 is disposed inside the closed compartment, substantially surrounding the implant. Electrode 684 is electrically connected to a first contact 690a outside closed compartment 682 e.g. via a sealed feed-though. Implant 132 is electrically connected to a second contact 690b outside closed compartment 682 e.g. via a sealed feed-though and via holder 134; see [0092]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the exhaust valve (vacuum pump fluidly associated with fluid port via a controlled valve; see [0080]) to control the internal pressure of the sealed unit (fluidly connect valve port 442 with vacuum pump to pump closed compartment to a desirable low pressure; see [0080]), such that the inside of the sealed unit is sealed against the external environment (and enabling pumping closed compartment using pump. According to some embodiments closed compartment may be sealed to such as extent so as to maintain a desired low pressure; see [0080]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the pressure adjusting unit (vacuum pump fluidly associated with fluid port via a controlled valve; see [0080]) to maintain the internal pressure of the sealed unit constant within the pre-set process pressure range (and enabling pumping closed compartment using pump. According to some embodiments closed compartment may be sealed to such as extent so as to maintain a desired low pressure; see [0080]), and discharge low-pressure atmosphere inside the sealed unit in which the pressure of the low- pressure atmosphere is maintained constant (applying a plasma-generating electric field inside the internal capsule; see [0088]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 15, wherein the pre-set process pressure range is set in a range of 2 Torr or higher and less than 30 Torr (a desirable low pressure, e.g. 0.1 atmosphere or even 0.01 atmosphere; see [0080]).
Regarding Claim 20, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the pressure adjusting unit (vacuum pump fluidly associated with fluid port via a controlled valve; see [0080]) to change the internal pressure of the sealed unit to be within the pre-set process pressure range (to pump closed compartment to a desirable low pressure; see [0080]), and discharge low-pressure atmosphere inside the sealed unit in which the pressure of the low- pressure atmosphere is changed (applying a plasma-generating electric field inside the internal capsule; see [0088]).
Regarding Claim 22, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 20, wherein the pressure adjusting unit further comprises a venting unit for injecting external air into the sealed unit (“Portable container 300 further comprises a gas reservoir 320 and a valve 330 operable to be opened and closed, which is fluidly associated with closed compartment 310 and with gas reservoir 320. When valve 330 is opened fluid communication between closed compartment 310 and gas reservoir 320 is allowed, and when valve 330 is closed fluid communication between closed compartment 310 and gas reservoir 320 is disabled”; see [0076] and “thereby flushing closed compartment 310 with the gas of gas reservoir 320”; see [0076] and “the gas may be air at ambient conditions”; see [0064]); and a venting valve for opening and closing the flow path interconnecting the exhaust valve or the venting unit and the sealed unit (valve may be opened thereby partially evacuating closed compartment into gas reservoir; see [0076]), and the control unit is configured to change the internal pressure of the sealed unit by opening and closing the venting valve (valve may be opened thereby partially evacuating closed compartment into gas reservoir; see [0076]) and discharge plasma inside the sealed unit in which the pressure of the low-pressure atmosphere is changed (applying a plasma-generating electric field inside the internal capsule; see [0088]).
Regarding Claim 27, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrode unit forms the electric field with an alternating current (AC) power supply (“The electrical circuit is configured to drive an AC current through an electrode or electrodes” and “ comprises an electric power source… configured to controllably generate an AC electric power”; see [0065]) for a process time during which the internal pressure of the sealed unit is within the pre-set process pressure range and discharges the low-pressure atmosphere (vacuum is maintained inside for a period of time sufficient to carry out plasma treatment… and an electric circuit may be activated to apply a plasma-generating electric field inside…; see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 33, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pressure adjusting unit comprises a venting unit exposed to external atmosphere (the closed compartment may be ventilated to ambient atmosphere; see [0220]) and a venting valve for opening and closing the flow path interconnecting the sealed unit and the venting unit (the portable container further comprises a valve operable to be opened and closed and is fluidly associated with the closed compartment; see [0221]), and the control unit is configured to open the venting valve (controlled valve; see [0222]). Regarding the limitation claiming, “to form an atmospheric flow according to a pressure difference between the internal pressure of the sealed unit and the pressure of the external atmosphere”, this is a consequence of the structure and operation of the apparatus and will necessarily occur when the valve is opened and the ventilation begins.
Regarding Claim 35, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the object to be treated is accommodated inside the sealed unit (closed compartment 230 which contains therein implant; see [0070]) and a surface of the object to be treated is treated (surface of the implant which has been exposed to the plasma treatment; see [0114]), and the object to be treated is selected from a group consisting of dental implants, orthopedic implants, bone grafts, skin grafts, ophthalmic implants, heart implants, cochlear implants, cosmetic implants, nerve implants, medical resins, dental prostheses, fibers, seeds, and foods (breast implant; see [0004] and the implant may comprise or consist of biomaterial intended to be used in a transplantation procedure, such as bone graft or other types of tissue or artificial substance used for grafting; see [0064]). It should be noted that the limitation claiming the type of object to be treated does not limit the structure of the apparatus, and does not render the device patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 36, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to maintain the internal pressure of the sealed unit either constant or variable within the pre-set process pressure range (operating unit including… a controlling unit and also including a gas pump… connected to the container via an electric cable and possibly via a tube for pumping the compartment”; see [0211] and “thereby enabling pumping gas from chamber and reducing the pressure therein during plasma activation”; see [0095]) during the plasma treatment (reducing the pressure therein during plasma activation; see [0095]). Further, the limitation claiming, “during the plasma treatment” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 37, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1. As established in the claim 1 rejection, Lam modified by Vane makes obvious the simultaneous control of the exhaust valve and plasma treatment and therefore control of the exhaust valve during plasma treatment. Lam further discloses wherein the control unit is configured periodically turn the exhaust valve on and off (valve may then be opened, thereby fluidly connecting vacuum pump with closed compartment and enabling pumping closed compartment… for a period of time required to activate the plasma; see [0080]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US-20180138022-A1), hereinafter “Lam” in view of Vane (US-20150097485-A1) and Devine et al. (US-20050205210-A1), hereinafter “Devine”.
Regarding Claim 23, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1 and discharging the low-pressure atmosphere inside the sealed unit (applying a plasma-generating electric field inside the internal capsule; see [0088]).
Lam does not explicitly teach repeatedly increasing and decreasing the internal pressure of the sealed unit. However, Devine does disclose varying the pressure in the system (see [0007]) through use of a control arrangement (see [0014]).
Lam and Devine are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lam by incorporating the teachings of Devine and varying the pressure. Doing so would allow the workpiece to be moved between chambers (see Devine [0007]).
Claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US-20180138022-A1), hereinafter “Lam” in view of Vane (US-20150097485-A1) and Young (KR-20180015054-A).
Regarding Claim 31, Lam and Vane together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 1.
Lam does not explicitly teach removal of by-products. However, Young discloses an exhaust unit that removes by-products from inside of the treatment unit (The above exhaust section (14) exhausts gas containing such by-products to the outside so that no by-products remain in the internal space of the chamber section (11); see [0037]). Regarding the statement, “which are generated by discharging the low-pressure atmosphere inside the sealed unit”, this does not limit the structure of the apparatus, and is instead a natural consequence of discharging plasma. Regardless, Young discloses that by-products are generated when using plasma (see [0037]).
Lam and Young are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lam by incorporating the teachings of Young and providing by-product removal. Doing so would ensure that no by-products remain in the internal space (see [0037]).
Regarding Claim 38, Lam, Vane, and Young together disclose the plasma treatment apparatus of claim 31. As explained in the claim 1 rejection, Lam modified by Vane makes obvious control of the vacuum pump and exhaust valve during the plasma treatment. When evacuating the sealed unit using a vacuum pump, the pump will naturally remove by products from the inside of the sealed unit. The vacuum pump removing by products does not add a structural limitation to the apparatus, but instead merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). As explained in the claim 31 rejection, Young discloses the removal of by-products from the treatment chamber via a pump such that byproducts do not remain in the treatment chamber (see [0037]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that plasma-generated byproducts may remain in the chamber immediately upon completion of plasma treatment/generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continue operation of the vacuum pump and exhaust valve after completion of the plasma treatment in order to completely evacuate residual byproducts from the chamber and thereby more completely achieve Young’s expressly stated objective of preventing byproducts from remaining within the chamber. Further, determining the duration for which the vacuum pump and exhaust valve remain active following completion of plasma treatment would have amounted to routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, namely the amount of residual byproduct remaining within the chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights